USCA1 Opinion

        September 29, 1992      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]






                                 ____________________


        No. 92-1163 

                                   HAVEN TRIPLETT,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          PHILLIP W. JOHNSON, ETC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Selya, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Haven Triplett on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  and  Susan  B.  Carnduff,
            __________________                            ___________________
        Assistant  Attorney  General,  on  Motion  for  Summary  Decision  and
        Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Decision, for appellees.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________























                      Per Curiam.  Plaintiff is not entitled to relief in
                      __________

            the  present  forum  concerning  his  complaint   that  Mount

            Wachusett Community  College (MWCC) wrongfully  retained PELL

            grant  funds because  no private right  of action  is implied

            under the PELL Grant  Program.  L'ggrke v. Benkula,  966 F.2d
                                            _______    _______

            1346 (1st Cir. 1992).

                      As for plaintiff's  complaints that MWCC  cancelled

            courses,  refused free  CLEP tests,  failed to  credit Elkins

            Institute  courses,  and  did  not  issue  a  certificate  of

            completion,  plaintiff has  failed  to state  any  cognizable

            federal claim.   No  state statute or  regulation confers  on

            plaintiff  a property  or liberty  interest in  receiving any

            particular   instructional  course,  college  credits,  or  a

            certificate of completion.  To  the contrary, the statutes on

            which plaintiff relies  grant broad discretion to  defendants

            to determine what  types of programs to  offer.  Nor  need we

            determine whether MWCC violated any contractual agreement  it

            may have had with plaintiff because a mere breach of contract

            of the sort claimed would not give rise to a   1983 claim for

            deprivation of property without  due process.  San Bernardino
                                                           ______________

            Physicians'  Services Medical  Group, Inc.  v. County  of San
            __________________________________________     ______________

            Bernardino,  825  F.2d  1404  (9th  Cir.  1987);  Jimenez  v.
            __________                                        _______

            Almodovar,  650 F.2d 363, 370 (1st Cir. 1981) ("A mere breach
            _________

            of contractual right is not a deprivation of property without

            constitutional  due  process  of law  .  .  .  .   Otherwise,
            ______________



                                         -2-















            virtually every controversy  involving an  alleged breach  of

            contract  by a  government or  a governmental  institution or

            agency or instrumentality would be a constitutional case.").

                      Affirmed.
                      ________













































                                         -3-